Smt. Sita
Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors [1994] INSC 594 (22 November 1994)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K. Paripoornan, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (1) 670 JT 1995 (1) 411 1994 SCALE (5)86
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
ORDER
1.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of
the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1654 of 1974 dated March 24, 1983. The only question is whether
Market Committee has power to levy market fee on buffaloes, bullocks and cows
bought or sold on every Thursday in Sammaspur Hat. The Division Bench held that
by operation of s.2(1)(a) read with Item 3 in Classification 8 of the Schedule
under the head 'Animal Husbandry Products' cattle is an agricultural produce
for the purpose of levy of the market fee under s. 27 of the Bihar Agricultural
Produce Markets Act, 1960 (Act XVI of 1960), for short 'the Act'.
We
find no force in the contention of Sri Sanyal, learned Senior counsel for the
appellant that the cattle is not an agricultural produce and the levy and
collection of the market fee on the cattle bought or sold in the notified
market is without jurisdiction, Section 15(1) of the Act provides that no
agricultural produce specified in the noti- fication under sub.s.(1) of s.4,
shall be bought or sold by any person at any place within the market area,
other than the principal market yard or sub-market yard or yards established
therein, except such quantity as may in this behalf be prescribed for retail
sale or personal consumption. Sale or purchase of the agricultural produce in
such areas shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, be made by
means of open auction or tender system except in case of such class or
description of produce as may be exempted by the Board. Section 27 of the Act
is the charging section for levy of the market fee which reads thus:
"Market
Committee shall levy and collect market fees on the agricultural produce bought
or sold in the market area, at the rate of rupee one per Rs.100 worth of
agricultural produce." The question, therefore, is whether cattle is an
agricultural produce. Section 2(1)(a) defines Agricultural Produce thus:
"2(1)-In
this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context -
(a)"agricultural produce" includes all produce, whether processed or
non-processed of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and forest
specified in the Schedule".
2. As
stated earlier, in Classification 8 of the Schedule, Item 3 identifies cattle
to be an agricultural produce. It is true that in the common parlance of animal
husbandry cattle may not be considered to be an agricultural produce. But the
definition is an inclusive definition and is wide of import. The legislature
itself has specified diverse items in the schedule which is part of the Act
which are amenable to levy and collection of the market fee when the specified
item is bought or sold in the notified market yard or sub-market yard or yard
or in the notified area. In view of the fact that the legislature itself, on
identifying the cattle to be an agricultural produce, laid its policy to
subject cattle for levy market fee, it is not open to the Court to scan its
wisdom. Though in the normal connotation cattle may appear to be not an
agricultural produce, it needs to be given effect unless the legislature lacks compe-
tence which is not the case of the appel- 412 lant. The policy and the wisdom
of the legislature cannot be tested by taking aid of the preamble of the Act
particularly when the language of s.2(1)(a) is inclusive, unambiguous, specific
and explicit. Preamble of the Act is the key to open the mind of the
legislature when the language of the statute is ambiguous. Absurdity of
irrationality of bringing the enumerated items of agricultural produce within
the sweep of the legislature is not a principle of interpretation of the
statute and the court cannot strike down the Act on its basis.
3.The
inclusive definition in s. 2(1)(a) under the caption animal husbandry products,
cattle has been specified as one of the items of agricultural produce for the
purpose of s.27. We find that the market committee, therefore, is well within
its power to levy and collect market fee when the cattle was bought or sold in
the notified market or notified market area. It is a common knowledge that in
rural areas weekly cattle fairs are conducted in which cattle will be brought
for sale and are sold. its regulation is the purpose of the Act. The learned
counsel, Sri Sanyal, sought to seek support from the observations made by this
Court in Ramesh Chandra v. Slate of UP., 1980 (3) SCR 104 at p. 125. The
observations therein would be construed in the contest in which the argument
was addressed. It is not the case where the cattle has not been identified as
one of the items of the agricultural produce under the caption "animal husbandry
products". As held earlier that once agricultural produce has been
identified by the legislature in the Schedule, so long as they are bought or
sold within the same notified market area, they are liable for levy and
collection of the market fee. It is not the case that the same produce namely ,
cattle has been subjected to levy of multiple fee in the same notified area. It
may be that there may be more than one market in the same notified market area.
If an agricultural produce has been bought or sold in the notified area and
subject to levy and collection of market fee and if the same notified market
area, certainly the market committee has no power to levy market fee more than
once. But that is not the case here.
Imposing
of multiple tax is the accepted legislative policy in Sales Tax Acts. Paddy and
rice, wheat and wheat flour, when separated, identified as agricultural produce
and each is exigible to levy of market fee. Hydes and skins when identified as
agricultural produce, merely they are treated from carease, they are not exempt
from levy of market fee as the cattle was already subjected to levy of market
fee.
Ghee
and butter are by products from milk but when milk, ghee and butter are
notified as agricultural produce, each is exigible to levy of market value.
4. We,
therefore, hold that cattle is an agricultural produce and exigible to levy and
collection of market fee.
We
find no illegality in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified as Rs. 10,000/-.
Back